Inside Deep Throat

Yes, there is fellatio depicted inside the documentary Inside Deep Throat. About 3 seconds. So go see the original groundbreaking porno flick of 1972, Deep Throat, if you want to be deeply titillated and experience a poorly made movie that grossed over $600 million and sparked a sexual revolution that resulted for exhibitors and actors in stiff penalties that carry through today in Nikon's' wet dreams.

Today fortunately is also a world where videos allow private viewing of private parts and only a handful of "art" houses even try to offer porno films. So why go back to those carefree days of free love and iconoclasm? Because conservatives have taken up Nixon and Reagan's call for a purer world, a world suited to George Bush's values-laden regime. Inside Deep Throat is a cautionary tale that implicitly argues, sometimes humorously, that young Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty are on to something when they complain our rights are being stolen.

Much bigger mirth arrives with the interviews of the retired director and project manager, among others, in their cheesy Florida print shirts and garish bungalows pontificating about the film's greatness emerging out of a mere $25,000 into film history. Not funny is star Linda Lovelace's return to the business, after disavowing it by taking an anti-porn feminist position with Gloria Steinem to speak for her and then going back to make a buck.

Sadder still is star Harry Reems' long association with substance abuse after being hounded by the feds as a scapegoat eventually cleared of obscenity charges. His current license to sell real estate in Park City, Utah, is a rich bit of irony. However, the humor continues with profundities by pop culture stars John Waters, Erica Jong, and Gore Vidal. Only a wry Dick Cavet puts it all into ironic perspective to ask if he could see the original now since he missed it and to aver that he always does what Nicholson and Beatty recommend.

Inside Deep throat is not as artful as Boogie Nights or as thoughtful as Kinsey; it is, however, a light look at a dark world that still thrives on privacy regardless of the public hunger for sex.

This is the story of the film that changed our culture and how our society looks at sex. Inside Deep Throat takes us behind the scenes of the making of the film,tells us how it became a huge blockbuster, and how it changed the lives of all of the people involved.

This is a very good primer to understanding Deep Throats impact on sex and censorship. This film does a very good job at laying out the story of the film and placing it into the context of the times. If you don't know what the big deal was when this film came out, you'll get a very good understanding of just why and how the film became so big that even small kids knew its name (though not its content). You'll also get a good over view of the battle to censor and to keep the film from public view, and an idea of how it shaped our world today.

I really did like this film a great deal. My one real reservation is that this film focuses a too much on the one film. Certainly the with Deep Throat in the title, I expected it to be mostly focused on that, but the censorship wars that were being fought at the same time involved other films and other media,for example the battle over George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words was happening at about the same time and was just as important.

But I'm nit picking. This is a good movie. Its a good starting point for learning about the film and the times that made our times what they are.

If it's possible for a movie to be intriguing and tedious at the same time, Inside Deep Throat has mastered the art of it. Having a famous porn film that cost $25,000 to make and went on to make over $600 million as your subject could make any movie intriguing. But the intrigue wears off about a half hour into the movie. It's clear that the film-maker knew he had a good idea for a documentary but as time went on, he found that there was not nearly enough interesting material to last over 45 minutes. It would have been just the perfect amount of time to fill an hour of E True Hollywood Story, but the NC-17 rating would make that hard.

The best thing about the movie is the vivid creation of the sexual revolution that spun through the US during the time of the film's original release. The life of the main character was also interesting. But these two things don't drive the movie. The rest of the movie may be fascinating, but the story telling is not fascinating. The script is scattered and choppy. The interviews are hardly believable also. Who actually believes that a bunch of porn movie makers who made a porn with such a stupid subject matter actually did it to try and change how Americans thought about sex? They were making a porn! They wanted money, among other things. Nobody sat down and thought about changing America with Deep Throat.

In the end, the movie is something you won't forget, but even a few hours after seeing it I can't remember why I found it interesting anyway.

To get the obvious out of the way, yes, the movie's rated NC-17. Yes, it earns it's rating, in part by graphically showing us how DEEP THROAT got it's name.

I have real misgivings about this movie, although ultimately I'll recommend it to those interested in the period or artistic subcultures more generally. It is very well made, with a lot of interesting archival footage. (I especially liked an interview on what sounded like "60 Minutes" with Jack Nicholson, Warren Beatty, and Harry Reems stuck there right between them.) This is a fascinating story, assuming you like the subject generally. And the filmmakers have dug out all sorts of interesting people, including Gerald Damiano himself (improbably whiling away his twilight years in what looks like Florida) and Harry Reems (who I think comes across really well.) My misgivings basically stem from this: the filmmakers want to simultaneously idealize a moment in time and, at the same time, draw political conclusions from the story. I don't think you can do that; I think that's a contradiction in terms. As such, the movie often comes across as very dishonest. Some of the dishonesty seems unconscious: if you're going to idealize the early Seventies adult film scene as brave busters of restrictive social mores, it seems strange to at the same time castigate those who would uphold them, since it's this very act of upholding them which gives your guys their ennobling quality, no? It's as if the filmmakers want to re-fight the DEEP THROAT wars again, without any sense of perspective.

But more seriously, I think the movie shows a lot of bad faith. It's one thing to properly make fun of a ridiculous evangelical prosecutor who spearheaded the DEEP THROAT trial; it's another to make fun of an FBI agent, who after all (as the movie reluctantly admits) was investigating the Mob's connections with DEEP THROAT. It's one thing to celebrate Hollywood's defense of the movie and Reems when he was in trial, but the movie makers rather glibly skate over the fact that Reems's descent into alcoholism was kicked off by his realization that Hollywood wouldn't hire him. As for Linda Lovelace, the movie has convinced me (rather unwillingly, frankly, and I'm not sure they intended to do it themselves) that she was at least pressured into performing in the movie. There's a still of her with bruises that's hard to gainsay.

Most importantly, the movie acknowledges that porno is a huge industry nowadays, but doesn't seem to want that realization to clutter up it's thesis that things are more repressive now. One could argue, after all, that the success of the current adult industry means that Damiano and friends have essentially won. The movie seems to want to say just the opposite, that these guys were doing more artful stuff that isn't represented by current fare, but leaving aside the question of whether that's true or not, the movie begins with a clip of Damiano himself admitting that the movie isn't that good. And the merits of DEEP THROAT seem linked to it's more-busting power, not anything intrinsic in the film itself.

I would have preferred either a straightforward idealization of that adult film era, with Waters, Jong et. al. commenting, or a straightforward examination of DEEP THROAT's sociological impact, which would have meant a more unsparing look at the realities, I fear. As it is, the movie makers try to straddle things too much. Still, if you're interested in the era, adult films or more generally "underground art" you'll probably want to check this out. Has a limited release, but I think will eventually play on HBO.

Deep Throat was filmed in less than six days at a cost of $25k. At the time, pornography was far from the mainstream and the easiest way to see sex was in sex education films and understandably there was moral outrage over this film. Despite bans and protests, the film went on to gross in excess of $600,000,000 and be one of the most profitable films ever made. This documentary looks back at how the film came about and the impact it had on society as it grew in success. However it also looks at the personal costs and benefits of those who were directly involved, from the stars to the director.

This film opens in an energetic fashion with lots of editing, cool music and animated effects, I like this style but I did wonder how the hell it was going to keep it up for 90 minutes or indeed how I was going to keep up with it. Fortunately the film only uses this approach until the title card and from then on it is comparatively more traditional, but still quite pacey. The story itself is interesting but perhaps is stronger for the link it makes to the wider impact of pornography on society as well as the impact on those involved in the specific film itself. It is not 100% successful at this because it seems to want to have its feet in several different camps. As a result it fudges the bits on modern society and relies heavily on Norman Mailer telling us how porn is different not because it is all about money and how the interest in artistic expression has been lost – which is all very good while he says it in his unique, booming style but not when you think about 1970's pornography and wonder how much artistic creativity was involved versus the desire to make whacking material.

Despite this fudge though the film is mostly interesting and well structured, with contributions cutting over each other to good effect. In terms of bias though, it is clear that we are not on the side of the moral crusaders here. We get chances to hear them speak, which is fair enough if you take it as read that the film is not meant to be a debate of the right and wrong of pornography so much as it is a discussion starter on the subject. Hopper's narration is solid and the couple of celebrities who pop up are wisely hardly used in favour of those who were directly involved.

Overall this is an interesting documentary that is lively and interesting. Not the place to come to for a debate on the morality of pornography but it does a reasonable job of looking at the impact the film had at the time and, to some degree, the wider impact it had on society. However the potted focus on the film itself makes for an interesting and accessible film.